• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Economy "Radical" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Because when you go that high up it is definitive that they pay a gigantic portion of taxes, even with their ability to bamboozle their way into not paying their fair share. One of the links I provided highlights that even with them not paying their fair share (which again they do not, not even close) their overall payment of taxes is higher than thousands of me and you level guys, and significantly higher than even the standard rich individual. This should be acknowledged since we do need their tax dollars to survive.

The point wasn't to say that "since they pay more leave them alone". It was to say that since they are contributing the most regardless, we need to be careful about how we increase their taxes. They aren't super rich by having the morality of Mother Teresa. You don't want other countries to look more appealing to them and those millions and millions they contribute turn into a zeros. It can have a roller coaster effect, like we've seen to other countries in the past so we need to be delicate about it.

So I understand the tax and tax differences and am all for raising their taxes, some types even higher than others (think long term capital gains tax rates for example), but I also understand it well enough to know that blanket statements like "tax them 70%" can have disastrous consequences.

Not sure where you stand on the position but me know if that makes more sense where I'm coming from.

I didn't mean to nit-pick you, and I understand where you are coming from - all valid concerns. My position on the above is that they already move as much wealth/income off-shore as they can. As far as them changing either their residency or business operations to a country with lower rates, I'm on the fence, because it is primarily the US framework that has allowed them to earn what they are earning, ie., do they want to move to Mexico and drop revenue significantly while paying less in tax (and also being forced to reside in a 3rd world country), or do they continue with 1st world accommodations and pay higher tax?

As others have mentioned, and a significant point that I'm sure is not lost on you, is that when people throw out the 70% number, nobody is going to pay that much effectively - just like when people rail about corporate taxes being too high - no corporation actually pays 35%.

Thanks for keeping things civil though. Are you a CPA? I'm not directly involved in the tax business, but my mother has had her own tax prep/accounting practice for many years, so I've absorbed a lot of this stuff over the years, enough to get me in trouble anyways.
 
Twitter does nothing to address or correct that she's on the list of progressives who have bots give them tens of thousands of likes and RTs in a matter of hours and hundreds of thousands in a day. They are well-aware of this and deliberately allow it to go unchecked.
 
You'll notice that it doesn't provide any more evidence of this "conservative backlash" than the BBC article did.

It appeared on Twitter and did the rounds care of Dan Jordan and AnonymousQ1776 although AnonymousQ1776 has since deleted his account.
 
It appeared on Twitter and did the rounds care of Dan Jordan and AnonymousQ1776 although AnonymousQ1776 has since deleted his account.

Exactly my point. Dan Jordan has 7500 followers and who the hell is that other account, which has now been conveniently deleted? Look at the replies to Jordan's tweet and you will see that almost everyone is saying some variation of "who cares" or "nice video".



I mean it would be extremely dishonest to say that "liberals are calling for Barron Trump to be locked in a cage with :eek::eek::eek::eek:philes!!!" after Peter Fonda did. And I wouldn't be surprised if some Trumptards did claim exactly that. But it would be extremely sleazy to pretend that a sizable number of liberals were calling for that - just as it's sleazy and dishonest to pretend that a sizable number of conservatives were criticizing AOC for this old video of hers.
 
Exactly my point. Dan Jordan has 7500 followers and who the hell is that other account, which has now been conveniently deleted? Look at the replies to Jordan's tweet and you will see that almost everyone is saying some variation of "who cares" or "nice video".



I mean it would be extremely dishonest to say that "liberals are calling for Barron Trump to be locked in a cage with :eek::eek::eek::eek:philes!!!" after Peter Fonda did. And I wouldn't be surprised if some Trumptards did claim exactly that. But it would be extremely sleazy to pretend that a sizable number of liberals were calling for that - just as it's sleazy and dishonest to pretend that a sizable number of conservatives were criticizing AOC for this old video of hers.


Well, in terms of looking at it the AnonymousQ1776 account is still archived.
Of course it's just random tweets by nobodies. ...but then those become political news stories (and get posted here) quite often.
I fully agree that it's bullshit, so I hope you aren't one of those that's jumped on the bandwagon the other times they've been posted here. Because usually it's on the other side of the political spectrum.
 
Sure thing! I enjoy talking about topics like this more than most because I can usually dive in a bit better (I'll touch on that later since you asked what I do).

I see, interesting. I can picture more people jumping to places in Europe depending on how much money they have, the higher up we go. Remember with the France debacle when their famous actor, Gerald something pretty much packed up to Russia because they were hiking rates too high? They had a lot of that going on at the time, and imagine if they didn't stop at around 50% and kept pushing up to 70%. It could have been a massive disaster. That is what I would fear the most, and it's why I'd push for smaller increments gradually, raising some specific taxes higher than other types, than one giant leap forward to a planned 70% rise (even though it would be over time). Here it is a bit different though because it would be applied differently than France did, and we don't have the same level of bordering nations as they do to move more conveniently. I think people and corporations that are within the "celebrity rich" range likely would be a smaller amount of people jumping ship or tucking money, but when we start reaching the billionaires I get very nervous thinking about how they may react since they'd be factoring in how to withhold such large amounts of money even more than they already do.

Yea that makes perfect sense. I think some people may assume I didn't understand because I fully don't agree with their position, but I don't really address that because I feel it's an unfair way to have a good conversation on the subject. Especially if I respect the poster, it's a bit disheartening. When I argue 70% is too high, it's because I think it's too high, not because I don't know anything. One of the better breakdowns superior to the generic google search finds for people who would like to read on it is here though (I save things like this religiously lol)- http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/valquestions/taxrate.htm

Of course! I try to show everyone the most respect as possible as we accomplish nothing by being rude to each other or dismissing others we disagree with if they are being respectful as well. Nice!!! It's always good and valuable information because you never know when you may need the knowledge. For tax purposes, to open a business, etc. It's always good on-hand knowledge so you were lucky. I work for one of the big 4 accounting firms (PWC) in finance, and I'm fully involved in client accounts for fortune 500 companies, monitoring and adjusting budgets, moving money across accounts for the same client (shadiest part of the job), yelling at our partner(s) who make 3x more than me (or even more) on make the right financial decisions with our clients only for them to get all the credit afterwards, etc etc among a bunch of other both cool and boring financial work. I admit, I am part of the problem as I am helping these rich people be even richer lol.

Great post man.

I readily admit that when I first read a couple of your initial posts itt, I had a knee-jerk reaction - I think a lot of other posters did too but highly doubt they will back off - it seems to be very difficult for most people to put in a real effort to meet in the middle of the street. While I respect other people's opinions, especially when they are much more knowledgeable than myself, what I cannot respect is the refusal to acknowledge that someone else may have a legitimate point. To me, it's almost as if someone is indirectly stating that they are perfect, have considered all the angles, and are never wrong or naive about anything. Some of the best posters on these forums, while obviously well-educated and highly intelligent, have a real bad habit of doing this - you very rarely see them back up.
 
Will this tweet get mocked more than the AOC dancing tweet?

 
We see here leftists quite sure "the right" as a whole are having a meltdown over this, just wanted to get you to go against the grain. :)

So I never even implied that and you overreacted? Cool.

Why don’t you quote someone who’s sure the whole right was melting down?
 
Last edited:
The 1% already pay more than their fare share.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/
  • The share of income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose to 20.6 percent in 2014. Their share of federal individual income taxes also rose, to 39.5 percent.
  • The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.1 percent).

What constitutes "their fair share" is a matter of opinion. Some people think they have a greater obligation to give back to the society that made them very wealthy, some don't. Nobody is trying to make them less than very wealthy.
 
Sure thing! I enjoy talking about topics like this more than most because I can usually dive in a bit better (I'll touch on that later since you asked what I do).

I see, interesting. I can picture more people jumping to places in Europe depending on how much money they have, the higher up we go. Remember with the France debacle when their famous actor, Gerald something pretty much packed up to Russia because they were hiking rates too high? They had a lot of that going on at the time, and imagine if they didn't stop at around 50% and kept pushing up to 70%. It could have been a massive disaster. That is what I would fear the most, and it's why I'd push for smaller increments gradually, raising some specific taxes higher than other types, than one giant leap forward to a planned 70% rise (even though it would be over time). Here it is a bit different though because it would be applied differently than France did, and we don't have the same level of bordering nations as they do to move more conveniently. I think people and corporations that are within the "celebrity rich" range likely would be a smaller amount of people jumping ship or tucking money, but when we start reaching the billionaires I get very nervous thinking about how they may react since they'd be factoring in how to withhold such large amounts of money even more than they already do.

Yea that makes perfect sense. I think some people may assume I didn't understand because I fully don't agree with their position, but I don't really address that because I feel it's an unfair way to have a good conversation on the subject. Especially if I respect the poster, it's a bit disheartening. When I argue 70% is too high, it's because I think it's too high, not because I don't know anything. One of the better breakdowns superior to the generic google search finds for people who would like to read on it is here though (I save things like this religiously lol)- http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/valquestions/taxrate.htm

Of course! I try to show everyone the most respect as possible as we accomplish nothing by being rude to each other or dismissing others we disagree with if they are being respectful as well. Nice!!! It's always good and valuable information because you never know when you may need the knowledge. For tax purposes, to open a business, etc. It's always good on-hand knowledge so you were lucky. I work for one of the big 4 accounting firms (PWC) in finance, and I'm fully involved in client accounts for fortune 500 companies, monitoring and adjusting budgets, moving money across accounts for the same client (shadiest part of the job), yelling at our partner(s) who make 3x more than me (or even more) on make the right financial decisions with our clients only for them to get all the credit afterwards, etc etc among a bunch of other both cool and boring financial work. I admit, I am part of the problem as I am helping these rich people be even richer lol.
The main point is that the US has worldwide tax jurisdiction and it's still the world largest economy and favorite place to invest. Hence it's unlikely billionaires would just leave to a tax haven, they would get taxed if they move the money out, they would need to renounce citizenship etc. Many of the rich cannot just go and make money elsewhere either as their money making ability is tied to corporations in the US.
It will all depend on the details, who will pay 70%? If it's people making 200k it's a lot worse than people making 1 billion yearly. Where that money is going? Direct cash transfers to the poor? Medicare for all?
 
I like AOC. I think she accomplished a great thing and hopes she grows into a strong legislator but I’m not for taxing anyone 70%.
 
The 70% tax girl is perfect for politics, it will be interesting watching her career play out over the years into the real world. A world where the divide between rich and poor gets wider. She's going to be the peoples politician for the poor and uneducated.
You think she garners bipartisan support?

Ambitious
 
Give Trump another term and anything is possible.
The worry should be the right-wing leadership that succeeds Trump. Any unsuccessful pullback from his policies or rhetoric and there will be a push to go further to the right.
 
She's a kook and the scary thing is is that she's offering spoiled millenials everything for free.
i would say she picked that up from Trump and his promises to the right but Trump never promised them for free.

He promised them for less then free. He promised them that others would pay for them.

Imagine how kooky voters would have to be to fall for that.
 
Right wingers are triggered because their worst fear has come to life: the brown socialist boogeywoman has been elected.

So all they do is think about her 24/7 now.
 
this woman is a complete idiot. every time she opens her mouth she proves it. however, not sure what is wrong with a girl dancing? if anything it is a good look for her
 
Still lower than the highest marginal rate (>91%) during the country's glory years.
Funny how those stupendously high tax rates coincide with the world wars. Have you read 1984?
 
Back
Top